D&D 5E cancelled 5e announcement at Gencon??? Anyone know anything about this?

[Hussar]

This icecream is a terrible vanilla!

Umm... it's strawberry./snip

The reason in this case is because a lot of folks didn't find 3.X wizards over powering, while some 4e players cannot wrap their minds around the fact that it is either subjective or circumstantial.

It comes down to style of play.
/snip

The Auld Grump

Again, I'm not terribly familiar with the Pathfinder rules, other than what I've gleaned here on the boards, but, didn't Paizo jack fighters and other classes way up in power in order to bring them in line with casters?

Wasn't that one of the stated goals of the system?

If it wasn't, why did fighters and others get so much of a power bump if not in recognition of this problem?

While there are numerous ways of dealing with the caster/non caster issue, the fact that both 4e and Pathfinder did so kinda means to me that there was, in fact, some recognized problem.

Claiming that there was no problem, when the system you play addresses the problem directly seems a bit odd.

 

[Imaro]

And I said so, before I had any inkling that they were making a new edition. They listened, and gave me the game and Fighter I was asking for. Its great.

Sooo... You got exactly what you wanted, it's great and you still feel the need to preach the (imaginary) evils of 3.x/Pathfinder & Paizo to their fans. Are you short players or something? Otherwise it would seem you've got no reason to keep harping to it's fans on the badwrong of 3.5/Pathfinder. Or maybe you're not as happy with your game as you profess. I mean talk to us, we want to understand.

 

[Mournblade94]

Again, I'm not terribly familiar with the Pathfinder rules, other than what I've gleaned here on the boards, but, didn't Paizo jack fighters and other classes way up in power in order to bring them in line with casters?

Wasn't that one of the stated goals of the system?

If it wasn't, why did fighters and others get so much of a power bump if not in recognition of this problem?

While there are numerous ways of dealing with the caster/non caster issue, the fact that both 4e and Pathfinder did so kinda means to me that there was, in fact, some recognized problem.

Claiming that there was no problem, when the system you play addresses the problem directly seems a bit odd.

I think the issue is, that the disparity between fighters and wizards was not a big deal for many groups. I thought Fighter could use a bump, but not at the expense of the wizard. PAizo accomplished that.

The issue gets exagerated when the noise on the internet often ran, that if you were the player that played the fighter you were having ABSOLUTELY NO FUN. It was HORRIBLE... EVERYONE else has fun except for me. That all seemed over exagerated to me, and was not the way I associated with other players. It would have been more of an issue in a player vs. player game I suppose.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Sooo... You got exactly what you wanted, it's great and you still feel the need to preach the (imaginary) evils of 3.x/Pathfinder & Paizo to their fans. Are you short players or something? Otherwise it would seem you've got no reason to keep harping to it's fans on the badwrong of 3.5/Pathfinder. Or maybe you're not as happy with your game as you profess. I mean talk to us, we want to understand.

More along the lines of "3E had problems, and when they made a new edition they fixed those problems, while some people still are in denial that those problems ever existed."

 

[ahayford]

Sooo... You got exactly what you wanted, it's great and you still feel the need to preach the (imaginary) evils of 3.x/Pathfinder & Paizo to their fans. Are you short players or something? Otherwise it would seem you've got no reason to keep harping to it's fans on the badwrong of 3.5/Pathfinder. Or maybe you're not as happy with your game as you profess. I mean talk to us, we want to understand.

That isn't what he said at all. He said he likes the balance that 4E gives him from a warrior/melee perspective. To categorically deny that Fighters and melees were underpowered compared to spell casters from a purely mechanics standpoint is ludicrous. You guys are just poking him knowing full well what he meens and arguing semantics.

You are all saying, ya but we don't care about the fact that the mechanics say my warriors is inferior in a stand up fight to this guys multiclasses mage/priest/psion. My warrior is awesome because I roleplay him awesome. We get it, so does he. Stop arguing semantics with him.

 

[catastrophic]

Again, I'm not terribly familiar with the Pathfinder rules, other than what I've gleaned here on the boards, but, didn't Paizo jack fighters and other classes way up in power in order to bring them in line with casters?

Not really. Wizards still rule the roost at paizo, even the new 'martial' sourcebook manages to give them some extra goodies.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Again, I'm not terribly familiar with the Pathfinder rules, other than what I've gleaned here on the boards, but, didn't Paizo jack fighters and other classes way up in power in order to bring them in line with casters?

Wasn't that one of the stated goals of the system?

If it wasn't, why did fighters and others get so much of a power bump if not in recognition of this problem?

While there are numerous ways of dealing with the caster/non caster issue, the fact that both 4e and Pathfinder did so kinda means to me that there was, in fact, some recognized problem.

Claiming that there was no problem, when the system you play addresses the problem directly seems a bit odd.

Some people claim that Pathfinder fixed the balance issues. Last time I checked though, they pretty much jacked up all classes equally for across the board power creep(though the Monk still sucks) while leaving the caster/non-caster imbalance roughly where it has always been.

It often does seem like the same people are claiming Pathfinder "fixed" 3E and that 3E didn't have problems needing to be fixed.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I think the issue is, that the disparity between fighters and wizards was not a big deal for many groups. I thought Fighter could use a bump, but not at the expense of the wizard. PAizo accomplished that.

The issue gets exagerated when the noise on the internet often ran, that if you were the player that played the fighter you were having ABSOLUTELY NO FUN. It was HORRIBLE... EVERYONE else has fun except for me. That all seemed over exagerated to me, and was not the way I associated with other players. It would have been more of an issue in a player vs. player game I suppose.

Moar denial.

 

[Mournblade94]

More along the lines of "3E had problems, and when they made a new edition they fixed those problems, while some people still are in denial that those problems ever existed."

Its quite simple really...

the problem did not matter to them and there were OTHER aspects of the game that made up for it. Meanwhile, for those who it was not a problem they still got the "Fully Balanced New and Improved Game that EVERYONE WANTED! " Look it plays better than that old scrap game we made. Now the problems you never had that bothered everyone but you are solved! You will like this so much more, even though you were not having those problems."

I don't think you are intending to do this, but it sounds like you are saying anyone that did not have problems with 3rd edition was just to stupid to see the problems. If they saw them they would have played the improved version of the game.

There were problems with 3rd edition... nobody is saying there wasn't. Many of those problems didn't manifest with certain PLAY STYLES. 4e caters to a certain play style that is not mine. I LIKE my powerful wizards and I play RANGERS. Do not tell me the disparity of wizards and fighters SHOULD have been a problem for me.

That is what your posts are saying. It SHOULD have been a problem. Well it wasn't.

 

[Hussar]

I think the issue is, that the disparity between fighters and wizards was not a big deal for many groups. I thought Fighter could use a bump, but not at the expense of the wizard. PAizo accomplished that.

The issue gets exagerated when the noise on the internet often ran, that if you were the player that played the fighter you were having ABSOLUTELY NO FUN. It was HORRIBLE... EVERYONE else has fun except for me. That all seemed over exagerated to me, and was not the way I associated with other players. It would have been more of an issue in a player vs. player game I suppose.

That's a separate issue though. Throughout this thread and others, people have vehemently denied that the issue EXISTS at all, other than for some people. Imaro, for one, has repeatedly said that the issue never occured at his table or with his groups.

Yet, if it's purely a playstyle issue, why did Pathfinder fix it? If this is something that only happens if you play a certain way, why change the rules and not just say, "Don't play that way?"

If you change the rules to address an issue, then that issue was a recognized problem.

Whether you like one fix better than another fix is irrelavent to whether or not the problem exists in the first place.